We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are K Chan please sign in and let everyone know.

Request for Responses About Justice Secretary's Error Decision and Misconduct

We're waiting for K Chan to read recent responses and update the status.

Dear Department of Justice,

I would like to ask the Justice Secretary to provide further justifications for not prosecuting C Y Leung, the former Chief Executive of Hong Kong SAR, for these serious allegations:

- Corruption, the so-called UGL scandal;
- Misconducts in public office, i.e. failing to declare his interest to the Court of Final Appeals as required by Basic Law Article 47, for receiving monies from UGL, months before and during his term of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong SAR ;
- Obstruction of justice, by attempting to (a) cover up the scandal and (b) interfere with the Legislative Council Select Committee's independent investigation of the scandal.

(A) In particular, I demand the Justice Secretary to explain without ambiguities, what were her bases of the decision for not prosecuting Leung, and the source of her power to bypassing the long-established and well functioning standard practice and procedure to seeking independent legal advice from senior counsels outside the Department of Justice?

(B) In case the recommendation for not prosecuting was made by a prosecutor within the Department of Justice, the Justice Secretary shall confirm whether this prosecutor is competent and suitably qualified, in terms of having both the relevant legal knowledge/expertise and solid practical experience from other Common Law jurisdictions. In case it was the decision of the Justice Secretary, I am unable to see the Justice Secretary herself, is competent and suitably qualified to make such decision, in terms of having the relevant legal expertise and practical experience.

(C) It is understood that the Justice Secretary has claimed her decision for not prosecuting Leung is within the power permitted by Basic Law Article 63. To me, it sounds like the Justice Secretary implies that she can make whatever decisions as she likes, even by ignoring any laws, long established procedures, code of practice and material facts presented to her by the prosecutors or Independent Commission Against Corruption, regarding the alleged crimes of Leung. Therefore, I think this is more than necessary for the Justice Secretary to clarify her position, by testifying the following:

(i) Has she put herself above the law? If she think she hasn't, why?
(ii) Has she overridden the proper functions of all courts? If she think she hasn't, the reasons.

(D) Though it sounds like a silly question, may I ask if the Justice Secretary realises that even the administration of justice and the powers of all Courts in Hong Kong, shall be abiding to the strict requirements and legal boundaries of the relevant laws of Hong Kong?

For example, there are Chapter 4 High Court Ordinance, and Chapter 484 Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Hong Kong Basic Law Article 83, etc. These laws ensure that nobody has unlimited powers and can be above the law; a full manifestation of the Rule of Law and the Magna Carta, that the Hong Kong legal system has been adopting from the English legal system, since 1842. May I remind the Justice Secretary that Hong Kong is still a Common Law jurisdiction? It is the same Common Law system since 1842, but now operates under the One Country Two Systems, both are guaranteed by the Hong Kong Basic Law, Constitution of the People's Republic of China, and Sino-British Joint Declaration which is an international treaty as addition for transferring the sovereignty of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to the People's Republic of China, in 1997.

(E) In addition, when all the alleged crimes of C Y Leung are far more serious than those by his predecessor, Sir Donald Tsang who was prosecuted, tried and later sentenced to jail, the Justice Secretary shall justify:

(i) Why Leung can be treated differently?
(ii) Why Leung has been denied his access to justice, by stripping away his opportunity to come clean via the court of law?

(F) If the Justice Secretary allows, it shall be my last question. Why she thinks she should stay as the Justice Secretary, without damaging the credibility of the Department of Justice and the integrity of the Rule of Law, when her husband has been charged and prosecuted for two allegations of crime while she also has been involved in similar alleged crimes for her own residential property in Tuen Mun, which is located side-by-side with her husband's. These alleged crimes are: made alternations to building structures of residential properties, knowing that the alterations are illegal; and made false declarations relating to the illegal structures, when applying for mortgage loans for the properties, with Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd.

Yours faithfully,

K Chan

Department of Justice

Thank you very much for the message. The content has been noted. We shall
reply to you, where appropriate, as soon as possible. (The above is
generated by an auto-reply programme to acknowledge receipt of your
message.)

多謝閣下的電子郵件,內容備悉。如有需要,我們會盡快作出回覆。(以上為電腦自動
發出的回覆信息。)

Department of Justice

Dear Sir/Madam,

This is to acknowledge receipt of your email dated 29 January 2019. We
will give you a reply as soon as possible.

Maria WONG
for Director of Public Prosecutions

show quoted sections

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are K Chan please sign in and let everyone know.